View source for Wiki143 talk:WikiProject Linguistics

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Header}}
{{skip to bottom|abs=no}}
{{talk header|wp=yes|WT:LING}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Linguistics}}
}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost article link for WikiProjects|link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/WikiProject report|writer= [[User:Mabeenot|Mabeenot]]| ||day =21|month=January|year=2013}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Navigation}}
{{archive box
|auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot II |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index 
|
* [[/Etymology/Archive 1|Etymology]]
* [[/Phonetics/Archive 1|Phonetics 1]], [[/Phonetics/Archive 2|2]], [[/Phonetics/Archive 3|3]]
** [[/Phonetics/Phonology template/Archive 1|Phonology template]]
* [[/Theoretical/Archive 1|Theoretical linguistics]]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 23
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn 
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes 
}}
Welcome to the '''talk page''' for '''WikiProject Linguistics'''. This is the hub of the Wikipedian linguist community; like the coffee machine in the office, this page is where people get together, share news, and discuss what they are doing. Feel free to ask questions, make suggestions, and keep everyone updated on your progress. New talk goes at the bottom, and remember to sign and date your comments by typing four tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>). Thanks!

== [[User:Eshaan011]]'s uploads ==

He has been uploading sound files as illustrations for various exotic sounds. I ran across his recording at [[Voiceless alveolar tap and flap]] and I really don't think that what he is pronouncing there is a voiceless alveolar tap or flap (if you are wondering why, you can see my more specific comment on the talk page of that article). As I look through his other uploads (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Voiceless_velar_nasal.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_velar_trill.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_alveolar_non-sibilant_affricate.wav, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voiceless_palatal_nasal.ogg), I find many of them unconvincing, too (again, I've left comments on their discussion pages, in case someone is wondering what I don't like about them). I feel far from equipped to judge ''all'' of his uploads, as many of the sounds are rather obscure, but my impressions from the ones I ''can'' judge with some degree of certainty don't make me very confident about the ones I can't. It looks to me as if he simply overestimates his pronunciation skills - both his ability to control what his speech organs are doing and his ability to correctly categorise by ear the sounds that he ends up producing. This results essentially in misinformation. I am not sure by what procedure such a problem is supposed to be solved on Wikipedia - there is no way to apply the verifiability policy in such a case, so I suppose that it's just something to be solved through consensus. I am just leaving this note for you people who are more involved in the phonetics articles on Wikipedia and I hope you can work out how to react to such a situation. [[Special:Contributions/62.73.69.121|62.73.69.121]] ([[User talk:62.73.69.121|talk]]) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:I'm actually working on fixing a bunch of them at the moment. [[User:Eshaan011|Eshaan011]] ([[User talk:Eshaan011|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 16:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:yeah i think [ɾ̥] should sound more like the ⟨t⟩ in [[mwod:latter|merriam-webster's pronunciation of ''latter'']] [[User:Brawlio|Brawlio]] ([[User talk:Brawlio|talk]]) 00:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_wmybw-RL0&t=1150s this video at 19:10] seems to corroborate my observation [[User:Brawlio|Brawlio]] ([[User talk:Brawlio|talk]]) 23:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

== Name-surname in two different languages ==

Hi, as we started to talk [[User_talk:IvanScrooge98#IPA|here]], how should we IPA-transcribe the name surname of a person whose e.g. name is Italian and surname is French? [[User:Simoncik84|Simoncik84]] ([[User talk:Simoncik84|talk]]) 14:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I would say that one should transcribe them like how the person pronounces them. [[User:Babelball|Babelball]] ([[User talk:Babelball|talk]]) 17:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::… if that can be determined! [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 22:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

== Merge proposal for discussion ==

There is an ongoing [[Talk:Proposition#Merger_proposal|merge proposal]] for [[Statement (logic)]] into [[Proposition]] that may concern collaborators of this WikiProject. [[User:Tule-hog|Tule-hog]] ([[User talk:Tule-hog|talk]]) 05:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for linking this. If anyone with a stronger background in [[semantics]] is available, their input would be very helpful! [[User:DMBradbury|<span style="font-family: monospace; color: var(--color-success, #279); font-size: 0.9rem;">DMBradbury</span>]] 01:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

== Missing article or section ==

WP seems to be totally lacking any information on the concept of ''fogemorphemes'', which seem to be particular to (or mostly to) Germanic languages.[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=fogemorpheme&btnG=] <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 01:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:See [[interfix]]. [[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 09:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

== FYI ==

This project has tagged the [[Boomerang]] talk page. So I am notifying you of [[Talk:Boomerang#No_boomerang_thower_bios]].-19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC) [[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 19:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

== Discussion on orthography at the Hawaii MoS  may be of interest ==

There's an ongoing discussion at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Hawaii-related_articles#Proposed_changes_to_article_names_section]] about changing Hawaiʻi articles to use the correct spelling where appropriate. There's some issues at play that this wikiproject may be well situated to weigh in on, namely the sheer overwhelming volume of objections in the past on the grounds that a [[ʻOkina|full consonant]] in Hawaiian looks like a diacritic, and therefore must be a diacritic, and issues with people arbitrarily deciding that one spelling is English and the other is Hawaiian, à la Saudi vs Saʿūdi, despite that not actually being a thing reflected in any sources.  

Thre's also concerns around [[WP:COMMONNAME]] being driven by orthogrpahic convenience (several news sources in Hawaiʻi use different orthography in print than online, due to how Google indexes and ranks which results in editors unfamiliar with the topic quickly googling and deciding that what they're finding is a/the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] despite persistant use of the Hawaiian orthography in both English and Hawaiian). Essentially, people are conflating orthographic convenience and SEO optimization with the actual underlying language, and that's why we're seeing this black and white divide between Hawaiʻi wikipedians and others.

This seems like the sort of situation linguist wikipedians may have encountered in other wikiprojects and may be qualified to weigh in on, especially since I know that New Zealand went through the same struggles while correcting the orthography over there. [[User:Warrenmck|Warren<span style="position:relative; top:-3px;">ᚋᚐᚊᚔ</span>]] 17:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

== Switching underlying shorthand of angbr IPA template ==

Currently the template [[Template:Angbr IPA|<nowiki>{{angbr IPA}}</nowiki>]] is a shorthand for <code><nowiki>{{angle bracket|{{IPA|...}}}}</nowiki></code>, however it has been discussed on the [[Template talk:Angbr IPA|template's talk page]] to change this instead to be a shorthand for <code><nowiki>{{IPA|{{angle bracket|...}}}}</nowiki></code> and consult this talk page about it. 

I agree with the reasoning that was mentioned, so I'll just summarize it below:
* Angle brackets will render in the same style as the IPA that they enclose (or browsers will attempt to do so). This makes sense for those that have specific style settings for IPA, which I'd wager is more likely for folks here.
* It's a more logical choice given that we enclose square brackets and slashes in {{IPA}}.

Are there any unforeseen consequences or counterarguments to this switch? Thanks! {{snd}} [[User:Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus|Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus]] ([[User talk:Kilvin the Futz-y Enterovirus|talk]]) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

== [[K-T-B]] ==

This is a fascinating article, but ... This has been unreferenced for over 15 years. If it's notable, then find and add reliable sources. If not, then please do us a favor and nominate it at [[WP:AfD]]. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 04:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:It's a Semitic consonantal root which is often used in linguistic examples (see the [[Semitic root]] article itself, for example).  I'm not sure it has inherent importance beyond that. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 06:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
::Ok. I'll inquire with individual editors. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 02:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

== Translanguaging ==

Between 5 and 10 January (mostly in one edit dated 10 January) the article about [[translanguaging]] has been overhauled. The edit is not an obvious case of vandalism, but it has resulted in a large reduction of the article's size (50 kB to 19 kB), removal of all internal links, change of section formatting to an unusual one and breaking of the article's preview. I am reluctant to revert as I possess little knowledge on linguistics and I have only noticed this due to the preview being broken.
[[User:TheDestroyer111|TheDestroyer111]] ([[User talk:TheDestroyer111|talk]]) 10:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, this seems like the worst kind of edit (in terms of the work/cognitive load it creates for others): it remedies several critical problems, while introducing several new ones (those you mentioned). The previous version of the article is also totally unacceptable, as it cites predatory journals. I know which one is easier to fix though, so I restored the pre-mangled version. If there's much worth taking from the overhauled version, [[Special:Diff/1270201956|it can be extracted piecemeal]]. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
:Also if [[Special:Diff/1268537692|this summary]] is true, they're violating the CC-BY-SA/GFDL requirements by not crediting the individual contributors. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 16:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

== where should the length mark go in a complex consonant? ==

The length mark typically comes at the end of an affricate, e.g. {{angbr IPA|t͡sː}} for what should arguably be {{angbr IPA|t͡ːs}} (since it's [tː] + [s], not [t] + [sː] -- which is why so many sources write {{angbr IPA|tts}} instead). For 2ary artic it should presumably be at the end, e.g. {{angbr IPA|ʃʷː}} not {{angbr IPA|ʃːʷ}}, since the [ʷ] is simultaneous with the [ʃ], or may even precede it, and is also geminated. But what about other complex consonants, such as ejectives or if they're aspirated? Should the length mark still come at the end, or somewhere in the middle that isn't really justified either phonetically or phonemically? E.g. {{angbr IPA|q͡χʼː}} or {{angbr IPA|q͡χːʼ}} (or {{angbr IPA|q͡ːχʼ}})?
I'd be happy with phonetically motivated {{angbr IPA|t͡ːs}} and {{angbr IPA|q͡ːχʼ}}, but since we don't usually do that on WP, I'm struggling to find a non-arbitrary guideline. 

I can see how other considerations might be relevant, such as phonetic aspiration of geminate phonemes vs phonetic gemination of aspirated phonemes. For now I'm just wondering about a default position, such as how to consistently format our consonant charts.  [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

==  [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[:DOBES]] ==
[[File:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|alt=Notice|48px|]]

The article [[:DOBES]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]&#32;because of the following concern:
<blockquote>'''[[WP:N]]; no coverage in secondary sources'''</blockquote>

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]].

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:DOBES|the article's talk page]].

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 04:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

== Ancient South Asian languages and Buddhist literature ==

There is a discussion going on at [[Talk:Charyapada]] that could use some support if anyone has expertise in ancient South Asian languages as recorded in this Tantric Buddhist work. [[User:Manuductive|Manuductive]] ([[User talk:Manuductive|talk]]) 14:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Template talk:IPAc-ar#Voiced postalveolar affricate d͡ʒ|Template talk:IPAc-ar §&nbsp;Voiced postalveolar affricate d͡ʒ]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Template talk:IPAc-ar#Voiced postalveolar affricate d͡ʒ|Template talk:IPAc-ar §&nbsp;Voiced postalveolar affricate d͡ʒ]].  <span style="color:#CD0000">[[User:Waddie96|waddie96]] ★ ([[User talk:Waddie96|talk]])</span> 21:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes? ==
{{archive top|In this discussion, the community considers how we format diaphonemic transcriptions.  In linguistics, academics use single slashes for phonemic transcriptions and double slashes for diaphonemic ones, but Wikipedia has been using single slashes for diaphonemic ones.  The community thinks about whether to change this.{{pb}}In favour of making the change, we think that using double slashes would be more correct on a technical level and more consistent with the academic literature.  Against making the change, we think that using single slashes is more convenient and potentially less confusing for the reader.  We also note that changing this would involve a very considerable quantity of labour that could not easily be automated, so there's a lot of volunteer time hanging on this.{{pb}}There are also quibbles about whether the double slashes should be a regular // or a double-solidus character ("⫽").{{pb}}Overall the community '''does not reach consensus''' about whether to make this change, so the outcome is not to make the change at this stage.  But there isn't consensus against, so there's an opportunity to repeat this RfC in a different place where it might attract more participation.{{pb}}I hope this helps.  Queries, comments, criticism and complaints about this close are welcome, and should be directed to my talk page in the first instance.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 19:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)}}
Our transcription system for English ([[H:IPAE]]) uses single slashes (/…/) to delimit its [[Diaphoneme|diaphonemic]] transcriptions, even though single slashes are widely used in Linguistics to indicate that transcriptions are [[phoneme|phonemic]]. Should we keep delimiting our diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes, or should we choose a different delimiter to indicate that our transcriptions are not phonemic, but diaphonemic (e.g. double slashes //…//)? --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 07:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*I '''support''' the change to double slashes, but I'm afraid that this won't be much more than a cosmetic change. [[User:Sol505000|Sol505000]] ([[User talk:Sol505000|talk]]) 08:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' using double slashes. [[Template talk:IPAc-en/Archive 3#What's with the double slashes?|The opposition]] to the change highlights the mistaken perception that our English IPA is the same thing as phonemic transcriptions you see in dictionaries. Different delimiters would at least signal readers that it's a different type of representation. That they wouldn't know exactly what it means is irrelevant for me because, let's face it, most people don't even know the difference between [&nbsp;] and /&nbsp;/, but we make the distinction anyway because it's contextually important. Phoneme vs diaphoneme is also important, as the same notation can be sensible as a diaphonemic one but not as a phonemic one and vice versa. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 09:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

*⫽...⫽ would be technically correct, if we aspire to precision. It's unfamiliar to most people, though, and so may be problematic if we aspire to practical accessibility. (Though, as Nardog remarked /.../ is probably also unfamiliar to most of our readers.) I don't have an opinion either way (for now at least), because of the social dimension. But ''ideally'' we should use ⫽...⫽. 
:When I first saw it, I thought it was a template coding error. When I realized it was intentional, I wondered if it would create a lot of drama, then forgot about it. 
:BTW, Usonian dictionaries also use a diaphonemic system, though without the IPA.  [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support double slashes //…//.''' Sure, non-linguists will not know about these delimiters at all. But I imagine that virtually all persons with at least some training in linguistics will know about the convention that single slashes indicate a phonemic transcription. I believe this convention is so well-established that it can be called a standard, which means we are using the single slashes in a non-standard way. In my opinion, we should be careful to avoid non-standard symbols since they are confusing to readers and editors alike. Using double slashes would make the diaphonemic nature of our transcription system much more visible. While that might lead to increased discussion, we have chosen this diaphonemic transcription system, so we should be able to justify our choice even if (or when) it becomes more visible.
:Technically, I believe that double slashes (two slashes, <span class="IPA nowrap">[[Help:IPA/English|//<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted"><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span><span title="/ɛ/: 'e' in 'dress'">ɛ</span><span title="'s' in 'sigh'">s</span><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span></span>//]]</span>) would be the best choice. I do not know the reasons in favour of using {{unichar|2AFD}} instead (<span class="IPA nowrap">[[Help:IPA/English|⫽<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted"><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span><span title="/ɛ/: 'e' in 'dress'">ɛ</span><span title="'s' in 'sigh'">s</span><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span></span>⫽]]</span>), whereas lacking font support is an important reason against. Regarding the other delimiters mentioned in [[Diaphoneme#Representation]], exclamation marks or braces (<span class="IPA nowrap">[[Help:IPA/English|!<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted"><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span><span title="/ɛ/: 'e' in 'dress'">ɛ</span><span title="'s' in 'sigh'">s</span><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span></span>!]]</span>, <span class="IPA nowrap">[[Help:IPA/English|&#123;<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted"><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span><span title="/ɛ/: 'e' in 'dress'">ɛ</span><span title="'s' in 'sigh'">s</span><span title="'t' in 'tie'">t</span></span>&#125;]]</span>), I believe they are less suited because they have been used even less and because they resemble less the well-known single slashes. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, it is standard. The IPA <nowiki>''</nowiki>Handbook<nowiki>''</nowiki> defines square brackets as "begin/end phonetic transcription" and the solidus as "begin/end phonemic transcription" (e.g. p. 175), though on p. 27 they say, "conventionally ... symbols for the phonemes of a language are placed within oblique lines: /  /."
::I suspect the reason for preferring U+2AFD is that it takes up much less space (depending on the font) and doesn't look like an HTML hack. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 13:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''': The double slashes are a quite technical usage in linguistics, however, they look close enough to single slashes by laypersons that I think the latter group will simply pay attention to the actual letters and the tooltip, with the slashes avoiding notice or comment by most. I think the larger problem, however, is: do we want to keep rehashing the same type of battles, like at the talk pages of [[Richard D'Oyly Carte]] or [[Melbourne]]? (See [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Pronunciation/Archive_11#Distinction between varieties of English|this archived talk]] from last year on this very topic.) A solution to this might be to make the tone of [[MOS:RHOTIC]] a bit more assertive, perhaps. [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 14:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::We might also make it more permissive, following the example of [[MOS:ENGVAR]], which allows for moderate regional variation. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 14:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Can you expand on that a bit? I think the focus here is, on a page like Richard D'Oyly Carte or Melbourne, we already have a system that works quite well, Wikipedia-wide, to provide a singular pronunciation useful across most English dialects. Why would we undermine that by making the wording {{tq|more permissive}}? (Perhaps an example or two could be helpful.) [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::::The focus of this discussion should be on the delimiters. I don’t know whether our system works so well when we keep rehashing the same type of battles. I believe marking more overtly that our transcriptions are diaphonemic will help. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::One way to make the diaphonemic nature clearer is to use superscript letters like {{angbr IPA|ʳ}}, as discussed [[Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 22#Superscript ə|here]]. I said we would have to make sure it's not used before a vowel, but now that I think about it, that can be automated in Lua. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 05:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*My primary reason for '''weakly opposing''' the use of double solidus is its poor font support and being needlessly distracting in the lead of many articles.
:But the idea that it would be somehow more correct or better aligned with some standard than single slashes just because the transcriptions are diaphonemic rather than phonemic seems mistaken in the first place. The distinction between {{IPA|[...]}} and {{IPA|/.../}} is a convention well established. The distinction between {{IPA|/.../}} and {{IPA|⫽...⫽}} is not. Using the latter without further explanation tells the reader nothing beyond that it's something different from the usual phonemic transcription. However, what is usual differs widely between readers as there is no single "standard" at all (and some dictionaries do use diaphonemic spelling, although usually not IPA). From the reader's point of view, lay or not, there is simply no need to distinguish diaphonemes from phonemes in the lead of an article that has nothing to do with phonetics or phonology. It wouldn't be wrong to use double slashes, but IMO, the single ones ''are'' just as appropriate in the first place.
:The previous consensus seemed to operate under the impression that double slashes would, thanks to their unfamiliarity, discourage editors from assuming they know what they are doing before reading the MOS and help pages. I don't believe this would be the case. – <i style="text-transform:lowercase">MwGamera</i> ([[User talk:MwGamera|talk]]) 20:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with you that {{unichar|2AFD}} would be a poor choice. That is why I would prefer double slashes {{IPA|//…//}}.
::I disagree with your point of view that we there is no need to distinguish between diaphonemes and phonemes. Such a need arises regularly around the diaphoneme {{IPA|//r//}}, when editors insist that phonemic transcriptions in articles tied to non-rhotic varieties of English (e.g. [[Richard D'Oyly Carte]] or [[Melbourne]]) should not include the {{IPA|/r/}}. For these cases, it makes a real difference when we explicitly indicate that it’s something different from the usual phonemic transcription. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 21:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Yeah, Americans don't seem to care that we transcribe British vowel distinctions that they don't make. But //r// has been a chronic objection. 
:::Merriam-Webster uses \back slashes\, or at least they used to. I don't know if that's an intentional distinction. 
:::There's also the vertical pipe. I wouldn't want curly brackets; that's too much like set theory, and IMO appropriate when delimiting sets of phonemes that constitute archiphonemes, but not something like this.
:::MwGamera, the distinction between /.../ and ''something'' is well established. There's just variation on what that something should be. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 22:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Perhaps my wording could be clearer regarding the need to distinguish it. There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from because no phonemic one is provided alongside it in these articles. Thus, only one kind of delimiter is needed, and a single slash is a valid choice for diaphonemic transcription. There is nothing wrong with our current practice.
:::Of course, editors need to be familiar with the conventions used, and this includes the fact we use diaphonemes. But double slashes aren't unambiguous in denoting that, and I wouldn't expect changing delimiter to make these discussions any shorter. – <i style="text-transform:lowercase">MwGamera</i> ([[User talk:MwGamera|talk]]) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|There is nothing to distinguish the diaphonemic transcription from}}: I believe there is. It is a distinction between the meaning we intend to communicate on the sender side (‘these are diaphonemes’) and the meaning a linguistically informed reader will understand on the receiver side (‘these are phonemes’). When a reader misunderstands the single slashes to mean ‘these are phonemes’, it is not their fault on the receiver side – ‘these are phonemes’ is the well-established meaning of single slashes. Instead, it is our fault on the sender side – we should have chosen a different delimiter that does not convey the meaning ‘these are phonemes’. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 12:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support double slashes'''. It's technical indeed, but I think we should avoid using single-slashes in a nonstandard way. [[User:Double sharp|Double sharp]] ([[User talk:Double sharp|talk]]) 08:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ⫽…⫽''' (solidus) – '''No strong opinion on /…/ or //…// but some reservations''' and questions:
**[[Template:IPAc-en|IPAc-EN]] is on 50,000 pages. There may be a gap between what some Project users think Wiki's English IPA usage is/should be, and how it's actually being used. (E.g. cases where use was intended as phonemic transcription, not diaphonemic). Samples of some articles' usage should be examined to check that, before we make large changes that may cause some (other) errors. I believe [[User:Nardog]] alluded to something similar [[Help_talk:IPA/English#Edit_warring_at_Richard_D'Oyly_Carte|(7 July)]], ''"I've replaced <nowiki>{{IPA|/.../}}</nowiki> in the [Template] Key section where they were unambiguously referring to diaphonemes rather than phonemes as far as I could find, but it can be ambiguous sometimes. (E.g. should it be "/A/ is merged with /B/ in accent X", "⫽A⫽ is merged with /B/ in accent X", or "⫽A⫽ is merged with ⫽B⫽ in accent X"?)"''
**It's a mistake to rush such widespread changes in response to edit wars or incivility [[Help_talk:IPA/English#Edit_warring_at_Richard_D'Oyly_Carte|on one or two articles]].
**[[User:Adumbrativus]] said [[Template_talk:IPAc-en#Template-protected_edit_request_on_8_July_2024|(8 July)]], ''"Suddenly changing only this template [IPAc-EN] means that such pages now use a combination of / and ⫽, in a haphazard way which confusingly appears as if the use of the two notations is contrastive but is actually unintended."''
**Exactly how many Templates would be affected by this? [[Template:IPAc-en]]/[[Module:IPAc-en]] obviously, but which others?
**⫽…⫽ would have several drawbacks ({{unichar|2AFD}}) for the technical and aesthetic reasons [[Template_talk:IPAc-en#What's_with_the_double_slashes?|given last week]]; it would also be preferable to use symbols that display universally. - Thanks, [[User:1RightSider|1RightSider]] ([[User talk:1RightSider|talk]]) 23:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' changing to double slashes, mostly per mwgamera, but also I want to add that it is very unlikely that changing to double slashes will reduce conflict related to non-rhotic pronunciations, like at [[Richard D'Oyly Carte]] or [[Melbourne]]. It seems silly to me to imagine that a person who was going to complain about the /r/ will see that there are double slashes instead of single slashes and think "oh, of course, it's a diaphonemic transcription!". No, they will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system, see [[Help:IPA/English]]" etc.
:I also want to reiterate the comment by Adumbrativus, that some articles use a mix of various templates and non-templated transcriptions, and that changing only the template will introduce distinctions that were never intended. This is not as simple as changing a template; if the change is made, someone will have to go through every article that has (dia)phonemic transcriptions and manually fix any conflicts that arise. For example, [[Cot–caught merger]] includes the sentence: "The phonemes involved in the ''cot''–''caught'' merger, the [[open vowel|low]] [[back vowel]]s, are typically represented in the [[International Phonetic Alphabet]] as {{IPA|/ɒ/}} and {{IPA|/ɔ/}}, respectively (or, in North America, when co-occurring with the [[father–bother merger|''father''–''bother'' merger]], as {{nowrap|{{IPA|/ɑ/}}}} and {{nowrap|{{IPA|/ɔ/}}}})." To be fully correct, I think you would need to replace only the first two uses with double slashes, but not the second two. (Note that the mixing of different slashes would probably be confusing to many readers.) This would be a lot of work and would involve some difficult judgement calls. --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::No, /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ in those sentences are phonemes, not diaphonemes, as evident from the fact it says "The phonemes are" and /ɔ/ lacks a length mark. [[User:Nardog|Nardog]] ([[User talk:Nardog|talk]]) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects. This just demonstrates the difficulty involved in introducing this distinction. --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|Un assiolo}} {{tq|[T]hey will still object and the response will still have to be "Wikipedia uses a diaphonemic system […]."}} I believe the benefit of using double slashes would be that they could no longer answer with a big “but Wikipedia explicitly indicates that the transcriptions are phonemic by enclosing them in single slashes.” --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 13:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Transitioning to any convention is going to be a headache, but I'm starting to think more and more that double solidus is a good idea. 
:::::As for the examples when it's unclear how we would fix them, that shows that they're either inherently ambiguous or poorly written. Perhaps explicitly using diaphonemic delimiters will ferret out other badly thought out transcriptions in our articles. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::Do people currently answer with that? The distinction between phonemic and diaphonemic transcriptions is incredibly obscure. And a transcription with an /r/ could be interpreted as phonemic even for non-rhotic varieties as long as you assume there is an underlying /r/ that is not realized except [[Linking and intrusive R|in certain contexts]]. The proposal to make it a superscript or enclose it in parentheses makes this more explicit. --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 17:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps we can do both. Nardog has recommended the superscript above (perhaps you've already seen). As for {{tq|The text must be wrong, then, because /ɒ/ is not a phoneme in most American English dialects}}, the text is merely talking about the ''symbols'' and how they're commonly used to represent a certain phoneme (across a variety of dictionaries, for instance). [[User:Wolfdog|Wolfdog]] ([[User talk:Wolfdog|talk]]) 20:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::But they don't represent a phoneme, they represent a diaphoneme. Any system using /ɒ/ for General American is automatically diaphonemic. And if it's talking about symbols, then I guess technically they should be angle brackets (see [[International Phonetic Alphabet#Brackets and transcription delimiters]]). But that's getting off topic. I am really curious how people in favour of double slashes would handle this situation. Is anyone in favour of mixing double and single slashes? --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 23:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Sure, if we mix phonemic and diaphonemic transcription, just as if we were to mix phonemic and morphophonemic transcription, which is a rather common occurrence. [[User:Kwamikagami|— kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 00:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Regarding the [[Cot–caught merger]] page, I see no claim that there is a {{IPA|/ɒ/}} phoneme in General American. What it says is that General American has {{IPA|/ɑ/}} instead. The wording “in North America, when co-occurring with the ''father''–''bother'' merger,” is misleading. I have made a [[Special:Diff/1234837714|clarification about the phonemes involved in North America]]. --[[User:J. 'mach' wust|mach]] [[User talk:J. 'mach' wust|&#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a;]] 13:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*I don't have much more to add right now, but I agree with mwgamera's analysis and I am inclined to '''oppose'''. [[User:Adumbrativus|Adumbrativus]] ([[User talk:Adumbrativus|talk]]) 06:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
*So what happened here? The RfC ended without being closed? Can that happen? What do we do now? --[[User:Un assiolo|Un assiolo]] ([[User talk:Un assiolo|talk]]) 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
**{{a note}} This is a WikiProject RfC, and per [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS]] has no authority to influence actual Wikipedia procedure. Someone from WikiProject Linguistics may close it, but in order to change official guidelines, a follow-up RfC should be held on [[Help talk:IPA/English]]. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 09:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Requested move at [[Talk:Entailment (linguistics)#Requested move 21 February 2025]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Entailment (linguistics)#Requested move 21 February 2025]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT;">[[User:Sophisticatedevening|<span style="color: purple">Sophisticatedevening</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Sophisticatedevening|<span style="color: purple">(talk)</span>]]</sup></span> 14:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Template:IPA pulmonic consonants]] has an [[WP:RFC|RfC]]==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Template:IPA pulmonic consonants]]''' has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Template talk:IPA pulmonic consonants#RfC on row order|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you. [[User talk:Kanguole|Kanguole]] 11:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

== Parent language redirect ==

Currently [[Parent language]] is a redirect to Proto-language, but these are not the same topic. While, for example, Proto-Germanic is the parent of all Germanic languages, [[Old Norse]] – a relatively well-attested language – is the parent language of Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish, among others.

Would this be better treated by pointing the redirect elsewhere (maybe [[Language family]]), or by creating a stub article? And if it's the latter, would anyone like to take it on? [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 04:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Does ''Proto-'' strongly imply "unattested"? [[User:Tamfang|—Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 06:52, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::Proto-languages are almost certainly reconstructions, so I'm pretty sure it does imply unattestedness.
::[[User:Babelball|Babelball]] ([[User talk:Babelball|talk]]) 11:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:::No? Proto-Romance is broadly Late Latin, which isn’t completely unattested. [[User:Warrenmck|Warren<span style="position:relative; top:-0px;">ᚋᚐᚊᚔ</span>]] 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yes, I think "strongly imply" is the right term here. There are a few instances where that's not the case; Proto-Frisian and Proto-Romance spring to mind, but even Proto-Frisian has the alternative form Pre–Old Frisian to clarify. That said, if I were reading a paper about a new language family and saw "Proto-Suchandsuch", I would assume it was unattested/reconstructed. [[User:ThaesOfereode|ThaesOfereode]] ([[User talk:ThaesOfereode|talk]]) 12:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
:I think since both [[Daughter language]] and [[Sister language]] have pages, it stands to reason that Parent language should probably have its own page as well; I don't think [[WP:V]] would be a problem at all. I would be willing to convert the redirect to a regular page if the consensus here supports it. If not, then [[Language family]] would be a superior choice to [[Proto-language]], but we might consider merging "Parent language" and "Daughter language" into one page, kind of like in [[Deep structure and surface structure]]. Also worth noting that right now, [[Surface representation]] redirects to [[Underlying representation]]. [[User:ThaesOfereode|ThaesOfereode]] ([[User talk:ThaesOfereode|talk]]) 13:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding this! [[User:JungleEntity|JungleEntity]] ([[User talk:JungleEntity|talk]]) 02:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Literature has to some extent a nascent distinction where a "proto-language" is the '''last''' common ancestor (usually obtained by comparative reconstruction), while a "parent language" is '''any''' common ancestor, thus it is an umbrella concept that includes development over "pre-proto" stages. The source usage I believe is [[Germanic parent language]], which might have some helpful sources also for developing [[Parent language]]. --[[User:Tropylium|<span class="IPA">Trɔpʏliʊm</span>]] • [[User talk:Tropylium|blah]] 09:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

== Introducing superscripts to Help:IPA/English ==

Notifying I just opened [[Help talk:IPA/English#Introducing superscripts|a discussion]] about the IPA key for English. Feel free to join! ~ [[User:IvanScrooge98|'''<span style="color:#0096FF">Ivan</span><span style="color:#FFAC1C">Scrooge</span><span style="color:#0096FF">98</span>''']] ([[user talk:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:grey">talk</span>]]) 14:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

== Emphasis marks ==

The article [[emphasis mark]] is currently about East Asian emphasis punctuations, but it seems to me based on some googling that searching for the term "emphasis mark" returns many other subjects, among them [[diacritic]]s and a lot of other symbols used in a bunch of langauges and writing systems outside of eastern Asia, as well as images of a symbol similar to ‴ seemingly used in comics. I am not convinced that the current subject of the page is the primary topic for the search term. Would it possibly be good to move this article to some other name and redirect "emphasis mark" to the section [[Emphasis (typography)#Punctuation marks]]? It seems based on the edit history of the page that that was where the link originally went before editor @[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] created the current article. [[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 11:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've never heard someone refer to an exclamation point as an "emphasis mark". Please re-read [[WP:PRIMARY]]—sometimes this phrase is used to mean other things, but I have yet to discern any conventional or enduring usage where it refers to anything but the marks currently described on that page. All the other topics you mention clearly have their "actual names", so I really doubt people are typing "emphasis mark" into search expecting to find a !! <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I didn't mention exclamation marks anywhere?[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 12:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Well there you go—when I Googled, I got a few results where that was the referent. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 12:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Interesting, I guess it depends on the person who googles? Well personally I don't find it improbable for someone to be looking for that, at least on en.Wikipedia where I imagine most readers are likely to be more familiar with Western text than East Asian text. Either way I also came across a lot of references to Armenian emphanis marks (which is mentioned on Wikipedia [[Armenian alphabet#Punctuation|here]] and even has a mistaken link to the [[emphasis mark]] article so I don't think I'm the only one who was confused). I also didn't really come across a lot of cases of the term "emphasis mark" being used in English for the East Asian punctuation either. I'm not asking for the page to be turned into an article about "emphasis markers" in general, just that it might make sense to make it a redirect to the [[Emphasis (typography)]] article section again and have the article on East Asian markers be at a more clear title to avoid confusion.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
{{ping|StarTrekker}} The three sources cited use this term. If you have a more authoritative one, go ahead and present it here. Google by itself is not a source. This is niche subject that would only concern East Asian typographers, it's actually a miracle that we even have an English term at all, thanks to authoritative translations and software localization. Without it, the article would probably be named in italics ''kenten'' or ''boten''. As for "primary topic", unless you could find something more notable that merits an entire Wikipedia article, whatever "convinces" you is irrelevant. And even if you're suggesting merging this article with [[Emphasis (typography)]] for whatever reason, the term "emphasis mark" remains the "primary" English term as far as I'm concerned.[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 12:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not asking for a merge at all, not sure why you would say that. It being a "miracle" that an English term exists and only three sources using it in the article doesn't exactly support that it makes sense for it to be the title of the article. (And I looked at the links and it seems to me that one of them much more commonly used "emphasis dot".) I'm also not sure if "emphasis mark" is meant to be the 'official translation' of any of the terms or similar in any of the linked sources as much as just a '''description of what they do''', same way the Armenian "emphasis mark" is just called "emphasis mark" because that's what it '''does''', the Armenian one also has a native name which is ''[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D5%9B šešt]''. ''Boten'', ''kenten'' and ''waiten'' seem to be pretty well used in English.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 13:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|StarTrekker}} You are well within your right to do a corpus analysis to check whether which term is more "common" or "official" or whatever. Otherwise, refrain from opining, please. A discussion based on no hard data and just general vibes like this is pointlessly moot. '''Cite proper sources''', don't just claim "I Googled and didn't buy it". I personally opted for the English term because I didn't want to bias against the non-Japanese terms. I don't know whether the English term, the Japanese term, or perhaps the Chinese and Korean term is more common, and until such time that I can definitively tell which is best, I defer to the authority of the English sources.[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 17:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|StarTrekker}} And to your point about 'if "emphasis mark" is meant to be the 'official translation' of any of the terms or similar in any of the linked sources', the answer is yes, the English terms are official as it gets. It took me seconds to Google corresponding Japanese sources, such as these:

https://developer.mozilla.org/ja/docs/Web/CSS/text-emphasis

https://kousei.club/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/13-7-e1600521787695-768x526.png

https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/TT/tracker/issues/356

https://www.w3.org/TR/jlreq/#ruby_and_emphasis_dots

"which is mentioned on Wikipedia here and even has a mistaken link to the emphasis mark article so I don't think I'm the only one who was confused". If those editors confused, they confused. Perhaps when I redirected, I failed to changed those links, and for that I apologize. But articles and topics share titles all the time. Synonyms are also a thing. Can you prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that ''emphasis mark'' is "primarily" understood as something else? Are you certain that those uses completely overshadow the niche uses in reference to East Asian typography? I'm not big on arguing based on vibes or feelings, I would request that you present some hard, irrefutable evidence.[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 18:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I do want to note that it's not out of the question that Wikipedia editors misuse technical terms. I've found egregiously widespread misuses of the term ''downstep'' in articles about Japanese pitch accent which are completely out of step with what actual phonologists use. Are you certain these examples you picked aren't simple misuses?[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 18:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::If anything they've said was "unhelpful", your tone here is tipping into actively counterproductive and a bit rude, to be frank. Natural conversation is a part of how we discover well founded consensus. We're all on the same page here; no one has to keep us on track. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Remsense}} I am simply straightforward, and whether you personally perceive my straightforwardness as "rude", "confrontational" or "combative" is of no concern to me, to be truly frank. I'm not here to be sweet-tongued and demonstrative to people who are not willing to be straight and honest in their argumentation. Your [[tone policing]] is no argument.[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 17:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::You're free to disagree with me and regard me as unknowledgeable on this topic but I don't see in any way I have been dishonest in my arguments.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 12:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I would characterize not citing hard sources and data while basing the entirety of your argumentation on feelings as [[Intellectual honesty|intellectual dishonesty]]. It's a rather inoffensive criticism (against religious apologetics for example) and it doesn't necessarily insinuate malice on your part. I only claimed that you were being sloppy with your evidence while unreasonably insisting that you were in the right, though I understand the word "dishonesty" may be triggering. [[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] ([[User talk:Mazamadao|talk]]) 07:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
(two weeks later) Thanks to {{u|Sdrqaz}}, Mazamadao's 2021 (yes, twenty-one) [[WP:CUTPASTE|cut-and-paste move]] has been repaired in [[Special:Diff/1289484857]]. {{u|Cunalam}} had created the article under "{{-r|Emphasis point}}" back in 2019. I have [[Talk:Elekiteru#c-Rotideypoc41352-20250502160400-Mazamadao-20250427084600|already warned]] Mazamadao against cut-paste moves, pinged {{gender|Mazamadao|object}}, and pointed {{gender|Mazamadao|object}} to [[WP:RMT]].

@Mazamadao: {{u|StarTrekker}}'s {{tq|before editor @[[User:Mazamadao|Mazamadao]] created the current article}} is partly why it is so important to move pages properly, attribute as described in [[WP:CWW]], and use [[WP:RIA]] to fix any attribution problems. I am also somewhat disappointed that you failed to correct StarTrekker when {{gender|StarTrekker}} made that comment. A quick "Also, I didn't create the article; please see the relevant history under Emphasis point," would suffice.

Without Cunalam and the eight other editors who volunteered their time and effort across those first seventeen edits, the article would not be what it is today. I'm glad they can now receive the credit that they should have had for the last four years. With hearty thanks to them and again to histmerger Sdrqaz, [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 06:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Apologies to {{userlinks|Cunalum}} for my misspelling of {{gender|Cunalum|possessive}} username. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
:I didn't mention this earlier because I was taken aback. Seeing the [[#c-Mazamadao-20250509071600-StarTrekker-20250426122600|reply posted right after my initial comment]]—not even the most perfunctory of "sorry, it was dishonest of me to imply other people's work was mine; I will fix the errors I have already made, and I won't do it again"—fills me with even more disappointment. [[User:Rotideypoc41352|Rotideypoc41352]] ([[User talk:Rotideypoc41352|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Rotideypoc41352|contribs]]) 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

== Requested move at [[Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 17 April 2025]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 17 April 2025]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:LIrala|LIrala]] ([[User talk:LIrala|talk]]) 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

== Discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Notability of individual letters]] ==

There is a discussion ongoing at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Notability of individual letters]] that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. [[User:Stockhausenfan|Stockhausenfan]] ([[User talk:Stockhausenfan|talk]]) 20:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

== Completive aspect ==

This seems like a good candidate for an article or a new section in an existing article.

I initially came across the term in the article [[Mi'kmaq language]] and didn't know what it meant, so searched Wikipedia but didn't find anything. I added some redlinks to [[Completive aspect]] to draw attention to it at [[Belizean Creole]], [[Tense–aspect–mood]], and [[Grammatical aspect]] (in the context of [[Kʼicheʼ language|Kʼicheʼ]] and [[AAVE]]).

For what it's worth, I googled "define completive aspect" and found this:
{{tqb|Completive aspect refers to an aspectual form that expresses an action that has been carried out "thoroughly and to completion" (Bybee et al. 1994:318).|source=http://glottopedia.org/index.php/Completive_aspect}}

— [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 00:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC) ''(originally posted 21:13, 5 May 2025 on [[Talk:Completive aspect]], which is now deleted)''
:Sounds very interesting but I can't say I really understand it.[[User:StarTrekker|★Trekker]] ([[User talk:StarTrekker|talk]]) 13:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I was going to say that I think ''completive aspect'' largely overlaps with ''[[perfective aspect]]''. I see that (one of the three sentences at) Glottopedia suggests almost the same thing. I can't understand or recall the difference. [[User:Cnilep|Cnilep]] ([[User talk:Cnilep|talk]]) 02:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::In my understanding there's a very subtle difference between the two (e.g. the claim that a language structure encodes completive aspect is slightly different from the claim that a language structure encodes perfective aspect), but even in professional linguistic literature the terms are often conflated (as are the terms perfect and perfective). So it will take some work to tease out a clear enough picture for a separate article. For now, I created a "redirect with possibilities" and will put it on my list of things to look into when I have time for serious content writing. Another medium-term option might be to add a section to [[perfective aspect]] discussing the subtleties. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] [[User_talk:LWG|<sup>talk</sup>]] 13:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Persian nouns]] ==

This has been tagged as unsourced for 15 years. Please add reliable sources. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 20:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Soliloquy]] ==
[[Soliloquy]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Soliloquy/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[Béla H. Bánáthy]] ==
[[Béla H. Bánáthy]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Béla H. Bánáthy/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 18:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

== Italian IPA ==

Notifying I have opened a discussion at [[Help talk:IPA/Italian#Diphthong notation]] regarding a possible change in the conventions for Italian IPA. Feel free to join! ~ [[User:IvanScrooge98|'''<span style="color:#0096FF">Ivan</span><span style="color:#FFAC1C">Scrooge</span><span style="color:#0096FF">98</span>''']] ([[user talk:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:grey">talk</span>]]) 20:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

== Sebastian Nordhoff ==

[[User:MonaCoco02/Sebastian Nordhoff]] appears to be a [[WP:STALEDRAFT|stale draft]] about a linguist. [[User:MonaCoco02]] is inactive. Found some links that might help anyone who wants to take on this article https://aclanthology.org/people/s/sebastian-nordhoff/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sebastian-Nordhoff. [[User:Legend of 14|Legend of 14]] ([[User talk:Legend of 14|talk]]) 05:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think the draft has any use in a proper article. //[[User:Replayful|Replayful]] ([[User talk:Replayful|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Replayful|contribs]]) 06:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

== Requested move at [[Talk:Yes–no question#Requested move 28 May 2025]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Yes–no question#Requested move 28 May 2025]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:The World Destubathon|The World Destubathon]] ==
Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business-related articles and we hope to see a lot of articles destubbed and older stale articles improved in particular. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for linguistics, sign up if interested.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 13:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
==Featured article review for [[Bæddel and bædling]]==
I have nominated [[Bæddel and bædling]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bæddel and bædling/archive1|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]].<!--Template:FARMessage--> <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

== Request ==

[[Hangul]] needs a lot of work if anyone's interested; lot of good writings in English that should be more than sufficient for revising it and fleshing it out. [[User:Grapesurgeon|grapesurgeon]] (seefooddiet) ([[User talk:Grapesurgeon|talk]]) 22:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

== Discussion about WP:DIALECT ==

There is an '''[[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Changes to WP:DIALECT|ongoing discussion]]''' about the future of the [[WP:DIALECT]] naming convention, that is, the naming of articles about dialects and language varieties. We invite fellow Wikipedians to join the discussion and provide their valuable feedback! – [[User:Aca|Aca]] ([[User talk:Aca|talk]]) 09:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

== New discussion at [[Help talk:IPA/Japanese]] ==

Over nonconsensual additions. Feel free to take part. ~ [[User:IvanScrooge98|'''<span style="color:#0096FF">Ivan</span><span style="color:#FFAC1C">Scrooge</span><span style="color:#0096FF">98</span>''']] ([[user talk:IvanScrooge98|<span style="color:grey">talk</span>]]) 19:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Lexical definition]] ==

Is this just a [[WP:DICDEF|dictionary definition]] about a [[dictionary definition]]? Or is there something else? [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 23:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)